Recently, someone on YouTube posted a video of how your hand effects the signal strength on the Nexus One (via Engadget article). Based on the comments that came out of the article, I don’t think it illustrated just how terrible of an issue this is.

As my video illustrates, all it takes to lose two bars worth of 3G service on the Nexus One is for you to simply hold your phone. In low coverage areas, this can spell the difference between not having 3G, and having it. On top of which, a simple shift of the hand can cause drastic changes, like dropping a call or important data transfer.

I think this continues to show how much Google is lacking any kind of effective usability testing within their Android department. Sure, HTC put the phone through the ropes, but it boggles the mind to think how something this severe would have made it through.

Update (2/18):

I got a email from Google today about the problem. This is what they stated.

Thanks for your note. There are a variety of factors which feed into the quality of 3G connectivity on mobile phones, a number of which are dependent on the environment rather than the phone itself. For instance, a software update can’t address the experience of users on the edge or outside of 3G coverage areas.

We have taken note of your feedback and we are already working on this.

I really don’t see a software solution to this problem. It has everything to do with an extremely poor placement of the antenna. I empathize with the difficulty of where to put such things. They have to pay attention to growing concerns over radiation from these devices while holding them up to your ear. Which, is why they’ve started to place them at the bottom. It’s just, that phones should be single hand devices. In using them as such, people tend to cradle the bottom of the device with their palm, in order to free up their thumb to type on the screen. The default positioning of the hand on this device completely covers the antenna area.

I see no way of fixing this other than by moving the location of the antenna.

The key draw of the Nexus One Desktop Dock is it’s ability to receive stereo audio over Bluetooth. If you were to connect the dock to your stereo system, you could transmit and control music from your phone without wires. A very exciting prospect. Unfortunately, Google utterly fails with it’s execution.

Who Reads Manuals, Honestly?

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to setup the Nexus One Desktop Dock. I mean, there’s only one cord for power, and another cord that’s for audio. Those cords can only plug into the port with the respective shape. Also, the phone is only going to fit into the device one way, standing up and facing forward. So, who’s going to read a manual? Nobody.

If history has shown us anything, it’s that people do not read manuals. They blunder along as far as they can go, then consult the manual when they hit a bump. And, herein lies Google’s Usability FAIL. When you first dock your phone, you are presented with the following screen.

This is the setting box you need to check in order to send audio via Bluetooth to the dock. Yet, the language for this setting makes no mention of this. This selection also sounds scary, and that by checking it you’ll silence your phone. There’s one more key point, the “Remeber setting” checkbox is pre-checked! If you do any of the following, this settings box will go away, and never come back.

• If you press, “OK.”
• If you hit the, “Back” button on your phone.
• If you remove the phone from the dock.

So, you’ve done one of the above and you played a bit with the Clock application. Now, you want to try the Bluetooth audio streaming. You can’t find the dock when scanning for it in your Bluetooth settings because it’s not currently turned on. Suddenly you realize what that pop-up setting box was for. How do you bring it back? There’s nothing in the Clock application, that which appeared when you docked your phone, that will display the setting. Removing the phone from the dock, and pouring through the phone settings will not reveal a way to make it reappear either. And, guess what? It’s not in the documentation or support forum for the dock either.

As far as the user is concerned, they blew their only opportunity to get their dock to work.

So What’s Missing?

It turns out that there actually is an option in your settings to re-enable the dock’s audio. In order to find it, you have to have your phone docked, then you navigate to Home > Settings > Sound & Display > Dock audio.

This is something the average person would have no way of stumbling upon. It’s also a key component, completely overlooked, in order to use the dock.

They could have fixed this by:

• Not having “Remember setting” automatically checked.
• Provided some feedback as to where the dock settings could be found after you choose your setting.
• Documented how to find the setting in the manual.
• Provided a shortcut to the setting in the Clock application’s menu.

Until this happens, it remain a shocking usability blunder made by Google.

For those of you that don’t already know, Apple Inc, release a new tablet computing product called the iPad. It’s hard to make judgment on a device when it’s on stage with Steve Jobs, and the whole energy of the release would make you want a pile of crap if it was sprinkled with gold.

So, I let it marinate a bit overnight, and have come to a conclusion.

What Apple Got Right

While I haven’t handled it yet, I feel fairly confident they got the form factor right. Everyone on the stage, and in the videos appeared to use it with ease, and handle it confidently. It certainly “looks” like the tablet computer we all dreamed existed.

The other aspect I think Apple got right, was the User Interface. Traditionally, as with Microsoft Tablets, software companies would just slap a few band-aids on a desktop platform OS and say “Done!” I like the fact that Apple is taking the path less traveled on this; requiring software companies to rewrite their applications to work differently with hand based interactions.

The polish. When the eBook application rotated like a giant bookshelf to reveal a bookstore on the back, I started feeling warm inside. Then, the purchased book floated up, the shelf rotated back, and the books all got out of the way to make room for the new book’s decent; I wanted the iPad to have my baby. Each animation is short enough to not steal from the action, and designed to provide some feedback as to what, or why something is happening. The polish that Apple applies to their applications is undeniably fantastic.

Lastly, the price. $499 for a base model surpassed all my expectations.

What They Got Wrong

There’s already plenty of posts out there that mention it’s lack of Adobe Flash support, multitasking, and camera. Although I agree with all of them, I don’t want to spend more time on that. Here’s a few more thing I feel are missing.

The first thing that came to my mind, was a lack of synergy between the iPad and the iPhone, or other mobile phone devices. The iPad is designed to be a light, and easily portable device. Whenever anyone travels, they all carry around their cell phone. I would have liked to see an iPhone pass pictures to the iPad. I would have liked to see an iPhone share it’s Internet service via Bluetooth DUN. I would have liked to see the contacts application in the iPad automatically dial a number on a paired iPhone. None of these were demonstrated, nor hinted to.

Using the tired iPhone desktop was a huge disappointment. Apple had an opportunity here, to truly rethink their traditional home screen. I would have liked to see something like Bumptop (see video below). Their lack of ingenuity and interaction with their home screen is in sharp contrast to the polish from the rest of their applications. Their focus on the singular application for everything, leaves me skeptical about the future of the iPad/iPhone platform.

Oh yeah, one last thing, the name iPad was a terrible choice.

Conclusion

Still, my opinion remains undecided. There are things to like, and things to hate about this device. Furthermore, it’s not even available to purchase yet, and I haven’t had my hands on one. It could very well be that many of the cons were simply not demoed due to lack of time or perspective. All will be revealed in upcoming months.

I was forwarded this article by a friend (Thanks Lauren), which is a very interesting read. You see the extension if icon detail being applied all over the place, especially in operating systems like Linux, where every distro release adds a new set of icons.

Another pitfall to watch out for.

One of the main topics discussed at the IXDA Interaction09 conference was, how to change complicated stuff. Marc Rettig, lead an hour long session on the topic. He tried to establish how to make a change, the new normal. In summary, he basically made these two points:

“Work of change is social. Deliberatly plan to be social and nurture that.”

“Relationships are more important than the things themselves.”

Finding ways of creating those relationships is not easy work. Especially, when the change that you’re trying to make, is more difficult than the alternative. In the video above, the designers use fun in order to change people’s behavior. The fun of using the stairs, creates a relationship between the task and the individual, bridging the gap of difficulty.

When creating solutions for professional business clients, do not overlook the power of making things fun. While on the surface it may be viewed as childish, or unprofessional, making something a game may be able the achieve the result you’re after.

Imagine a Google Sky map application, that instead of showing you star constellations, would instead show you the gas, electric, and water lines running under the soil in your yard. You could simply launch the app, stand in your back yard, and march around until you find that appropriate place to plant your new fruit tree, without cutting power off to your house.

I when through about every iteration of usability testing that Jeffrey Rubin suggested. I started with being in the room, with others watching. Then I moved everyone out of the room, and had them watch remotely. Finally, I removed even myself, and performed the entire test remotely from my office. To accomplish this, I used an Axis ethernet camera to watch the participant, VNC to remotely watch the participant’s screen, Camtasia Studio to record the session and screen, and a flash application to provide scenarios and log time.

While this book will get you started, it doesn’t teach you everything. You can only learn the rest through studies in statistics, psychology, and experience. When it comes to usability testing and reliable results, everything becomes a factor: Did I assist too much? Was my voice too threatening? Was my scenario ill written? Was the participant having a bad day? Does the participant truly match my target audience?

But, you can worry about the accuracy after you learn the process. Start with this book. You won’t be sorry. No matter how bad you perform a usability test, you’re bound to learn something of value that will make it all worth while.

People like Mrs. Kostellow amaze me. The live in a world of aesthetics. They find the beauty in things as the utmost importance. They can spend all day analyzing the particulars of a bend of wire, and only quit because they’re too tired to continue.

I found this book entertaining from a history aspect, inspirational from a biography aspect, and educational from a instructional aspect. You only read about half of this book. The rest is a series of projects to perform in analyzing objects in the third dimension. There’s plenty in this book to take away. There’s also hours of activities to be performed and reviewed. Whether or not you’re working in three dimensional design, this book still provides valuable lessons and exercises in design thinking.

I learned about Nancy Duarte’s book from Presentation Zen. I have to say the there are a lot of parallels between Garr Reynolds’ book and this one. They both cover slide design, development, story, etc.

There are two aspects I really liked about Nancy Duarte’s book. First, I really like the several pages of slide visualization concepts found toward the beginning of the book. The second, was the part about templates. I despise templates, because they promote a person to use Power Point to build your presentation. But, as Nancy points out, if you build a template that depicts all the different slide types that should be used, you’ll help create a more uniform and professional presentation.

Worth the money, the time, and has been a great source of reference for me.

One point Buxton really tries to drive home, is that not everyone is a designer. That if you don’t get “design,” you can’t be part of our little club.

While I agree that being a designer does take a certain person, I think it’s wrong to not invite more people into the discussion. As Buxton himself so aptly points out, “design is compromise.” And, making the design process this great intangible, will only alienable the very people who’s feedback and cooperation to so desperately need.

What I did like about this book was Buxton’s views on sketching. I like the sketch iterations that he discussed. That it is important to leave certain designs in a state of “incompleteness.” If designs that you’re working on looks too well thought out, it can prevent further discussion.

Again, don’t buy this book. Borrow it, read it at your local library, whatever. Once you’re done with it, you won’t find yourself desiring to read it again.